You are on page 1of 47

# CHAPTER 6

Co py rig hte dM ate ria l
SHEAR STRENGTH
6.1 EXTENDED MOHR-COULOMB (M-C) CRITERION M-C for Saturated Soil 6.1.1

Measuring, modeling, and predicting the shear strength of soil are hallmarks of soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering. A solid understanding of shear strength behavior is required for addressing numerous engineering problems where stability of a given soil mass under load is of concern. Examples of these types of problems include bearing capacity, slope stability, lateral earth pressure, pavement design, and foundation design, among many others. The shear strength of soil, whether saturated or unsaturated, may be deﬁned as the maximum internal resistance per unit area the soil is capable of sustaining along the failure plane under external or internal stress loading. For saturated soil, shear strength is commonly described by the M-C failure criterion, which deﬁnes shear strength in terms of the material variables ␾Ј and cЈ and the stress state variable effective stress as
␶ƒ ϭ cЈ ϩ (␴ Ϫ uw)ƒ tan ␾Ј

(6.1)

where ␶f is the shear stress on the failure plane at failure, cЈ is the effective cohesion, (␴ Ϫ uw)ƒ is the effective normal stress on the failure plane at failure, and ␾Ј is the effective angle of internal friction. As shown in Fig. 6.1, the M-C failure criterion deﬁnes a straight line with a slope equal to tan ␾Ј and an intercept equal to cЈ in the space of effective normal stress and shear stress. For cohesionless soil (i.e., cЈ ϭ 0), eq. (6.1) reduces to a line passing through the origin. The M-C criterion is commonly
220

6.1

EXTENDED MOHR-COULOMB (M-C) CRITERION

221

Shear Stress, τ

τf = cЈ + (σ – uw)f tan φЈ [(σ – uw)f, τf]

φЈ

Co py rig hte dM ate ria l
B A cЈ
(σ3 – uw)A,B (σ1 – uw)A (σ1 – uw)B Effective Normal Stress, σ – u w Figure 6.1 Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for saturated soil. State of stress described by Mohr’s circle A is stable. State of stress described by Mohr’s circle B represents a failure condition.

referred to as a failure envelope because any combination of effective normal stress and shear stress deﬁned by the points along the line corresponds to a failure condition. Accordingly, the shear stress along the failure envelope describes the shear strength of the soil under the corresponding effective normal stress. Mohr’s circles can be drawn to represent the state of normal and shear stress acting on any plane in a soil element. If the Mohr circle for some state of stress falls entirely below the M-C failure envelope, the shear strength has not been exceeded and the soil mass remains stable. Consider, for example, the states of stress deﬁned by circles A and B in Fig. 6.1. Under condition A, the combination of minor and major effective principal stresses ␴3 Ϫ uw and ␴1 Ϫ uw is such that the soil element remains stable. However, if the major principal stress is increased to the condition described by Mohr’s circle B, then failure occurs under the normal and shear stress conditions (␴ Ϫ uw)f and ␶f. The orientation of the failure plane may be evaluated by considering the geometry of the Mohr circle.
6.1.2 Experimental Observations of Unsaturated Shear Strength

Modern experimental studies regarding the shear strength of unsaturated soil date back to the 1950s and 1960s. Laboratory tests have most commonly been conducted using triaxial or direct shear testing equipment modiﬁed to incorporate pore air pressure control and a high-air-entry (HAE) ceramic disk for control of matric suction by axis translation (Section 5.4). By directly controlling or measuring total normal stress ␴, pore air pressure ua, and pore water pressure uw under various stress paths and drainage conditions, the dependency of shear strength and volume change behavior on the stress state

222

SHEAR STRENGTH

Co py rig hte dM ate ria l
Deviator Stress (σ1 – σ3) Axial Loading Ram Confining Cell Coarse Porous Stone Specimen Membrane HAE Disk Pedestal Confining Stress (σ3 = σ2) Pore Water Pressure (u w) Pore Air Pressure (u a)

variables net normal stress ␴ Ϫ ua and matric suction ua Ϫ uw may be evaluated. Figure 6.2 illustrates one variation of the basic experimental setup for triaxial testing of unsaturated soil. Similar to conventional triaxial testing, a cylindrical soil specimen is placed on a pedestal in a ﬂuid-ﬁlled conﬁning cell, separated from the conﬁning ﬂuid by a ﬂexible membrane. A saturated HAE ceramic disk is placed in good contact with the bottom of the specimen to establish an external hydraulic connection with the pore water. A low-airentry (coarse) porous disk is placed between the specimen and the specimen top cap to establish a similar connection for external control of the pore air pressure. Filter papers, ﬁbers, or other low-air-entry materials may also be placed along the sides of the specimen to create additional contact area for pore air pressure control. Isotropic stress may be applied by pressurizing the conﬁning ﬂuid. An axial loading ram allows application of deviator stress for shear loading.

Figure 6.2 Schematic diagram of modiﬁed triaxial system for measuring shear strength of unsaturated soil.

6.1

EXTENDED MOHR-COULOMB (M-C) CRITERION

223

Co py rig hte dM ate ria l
΄
␴1 Ϫ ua

Specimens are typically initially saturated by applying pore water backpressure increments at constant effective stress. The specimen may then be consolidated under isotropic effective conﬁning pressure if desired. Some desired level of matric suction is imposed prior to the shearing phase by elevating the pore air pressure while allowing pore water to drain through the ceramic disk. The corresponding matric suction is measured at equilibrium as the difference between the applied air pressure and the pore water pressure (ua Ϫ uw), where the latter is directly controlled or measured at some external location. Deviator stress ␴1 Ϫ ␴3 and axial or volumetric strain are measured as the specimen is loaded in compression to failure under drained or undrained conditions. Numerous specimens are prepared and tested at various levels of matric suction and net normal stress in order to develop a reliable failure envelope. Alternatively, multistage tests may be conducted for a single specimen whereby the applied stresses are maintained constant or released just prior to failure. Subsequent test stages are conducted by reloading the specimen under different magnitudes of net normal stress and matric suction, thereby maximizing the amount of information that may be gained for one specimen and eliminating the effect of specimen variability on the results. Figure 6.3 shows an example of data obtained from a series of six consolidated-drained (CD) triaxial tests for specimens of unsaturated silt (Blight, 1967). All specimens were initially compacted by the standard American Association for State Highway and Transportation Organization (AASHTO) method at a molding gravimetric water content of 16.5%. Figure 6.3a shows results in terms of deviator stress ␴1 Ϫ ␴3 versus axial strain for three specimens at net conﬁning stress ␴3 Ϫ ua of 13.8 kPa and three levels of matric suction ua Ϫ uw: 6.9, 68.9, and 137.9 kPa. Figure 6.3b shows results for three additional specimens at a slightly higher net conﬁning stress of 27.6 kPa and the same three levels of matric suction. The state of stress at failure for each test can be analyzed following an independent stress tensor approach (Section 5.3). For example, consider the results from the test at net conﬁning stress of 13.8 kPa and matric suction of 6.9 kPa (labeled A on Fig. 6.3a). If the deviator stress at failure is interpreted to be 30 kPa, then the corresponding net normal stress tensor at failure for test A is as follows: 0 0 0

0 0

␴2 Ϫ ua

0

␴3 Ϫ ua

΅ ΄
ϭ
A

43.8 0 0 0 13.8 0 kPa 0 0 13.8

΅

The matric suction tensor at failure for test A is

΄

ua Ϫ uw 0 0 0 ua Ϫ uw 0 0 0 ua Ϫ uw

΅ ΄
ϭ
A

6.9 0 0 0 6.9 0 kPa 0 0 6.9

΅

and C.0 2.0 2.6 kPa 150 F u a – uw = 137.0 Axial Strain (%) (b) Figure 6.0 6.9 kPa 100 E u a – uw = 68.0 Axial Strain (%) (a) 200 Deviator Stress. B.8 kPa and three levels of matric suction (ua Ϫ uw). B.0 3. Series of six tests were conducted: (a) tests labeled A.0 4. 1967).0 3.0 6.9 kPa 50 D u a – uw = 6.knovel. σ1 – σ3 (kPa) Co py rig hte dM ate ria l 150 σ3 – ua = 13.0 0 0 1. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.9 kPa 100 C B ua – uw = 68. and F were conducted at net conﬁning stress of 27. E.8 kPa ua – uw = 137.9 kPa 4. and (b) tests labeled D.com . and C were conducted at net conﬁning stress (␴3 Ϫ ua) of 13.9 kPa 50 A ua – uw = 6.3 Results of consolidated-drained triaxial tests for unsaturated silt (data from Blight.9 kPa 0 0 1.0 5.6 kPa and the same levels of matric suction as tests A.0 5.224 SHEAR STRENGTH 200 Deviator Stress. σ1 – σ3 (kPa) σ3 – ua = 27.

6 kPa).1 EXTENDED MOHR-COULOMB (M-C) CRITERION 225 Similarly. the net normal stress tensors at failure for tests C and F at matric suction equal to 137.6 0 0 0 27.6 0 kPa 0 0 27. which was conducted at the same matric suction but increased net conﬁning stress (27.9 ua Ϫ uw ϭ 137. the net normal stress tensor at failure for test D.9 0 0 0 6.9 kPa are ͫ ␴1 Ϫ ua 0 0 0 ␴2 Ϫ ua 0 0 0 ␴3 Ϫ ua ΅ ΄ ϭ C 130.9 kPa ua Ϫ uw 68.8 ⅐⅐⅐ Ά ua Ϫ uw 137.knovel.9 kPa ua Ϫ uw 68.9 ΅ The net normal stress tensors at failure for tests B and E at matric suction equal to 68.8 0 0 0 13.9 · Ά · and Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.6.6 0 kPa 0 0 27.8 ΅ ⅐⅐⅐ Ά ua Ϫ uw 68.9 kPa are ΄ ␴1 Ϫ ua 0 0 0 ␴2 Ϫ ua 0 0 0 ␴3 Ϫ ua ΅ ΄ ϭ B 113.9 kPa ua Ϫ uw 137.6 ⅐⅐⅐ Ά ua Ϫ uw 68.8 0 0 0 13.6 ΅ and the matric suction tensor for test D is ΄ 0 0 ua Ϫ uw 0 ua Ϫ uw 0 0 0 u a Ϫ uw ΅ ΄ ϭ D 6.9 · Ά · ΅ Finally.9 ua Ϫ uw ϭ 68.9 0 kPa 0 0 6. may be interpreted as Co py rig hte dM ate ria l 0 0 ␴2 Ϫ ua ΄ ␴1 Ϫ ua 0 0 0 0 ␴3 Ϫ ua ΅ ΄ ϭ D 75 0 0 0 27.8 0 kPa 0 0 13.8 0 kPa 0 0 13.com .9 ua Ϫ uw ϭ 68.9 · Ά · ΅ and ΄ ␴1 Ϫ ua 0 0 0 ␴2 Ϫ ua 0 0 0 ␴3 Ϫ ua ΅ ΄ ϭ E 155.

6 0 kPa 0 0 27.4. Here.9 kPa 0 50 100 150 200 250 Net Normal Stress.com . Tests A. A saturated HAE ceramic disk is installed in the base of the shear box and the entire box is enclosed in an air-tight – u w (k Pa ) Shear Stress.9 kPa M B E u a – uw = 68.9 kPa u a Ϫ uw 137. Tests B and E are seated on the matric suction axis at 68.5 illustrates a variation of the basic experimental setup for shear strength testing using direct shear testing equipment modiﬁed for control of matric suction. σ – ua (kPa) Figure 6. the specimen is conﬁned by a split box that allows the top half of the specimen to be displaced relative to the bottom half along a prescribed horizontal failure plane.9 ua Ϫ uw ϭ 137. Tests C and F are seated on the matric suction axis at 137. and F are described by a constant net conﬁning pressure of 27. E. 6. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. τ (kPa) Su cti at r ic on F u C a u a – uw = 137.9 kPa.6 kPa.9 kPa A D u a – uw = 6. and C are described by a constant net conﬁning pressure of 13.4 Extended Mohr-Coulomb diagram showing state of stress at failure interpreted from Blight’s (1967) results for triaxial tests on unsaturated silt.9 kPa. B.6 0 0 0 27.9 · Ά · The state of stress at failure for each test may be plotted by considering an extended M-C diagram as shown in Fig.knovel. Tests D.8 kPa. Figure 6. The Mohr circles for tests A and D are seated on the matric suction axis at 6.9 kPa.226 SHEAR STRENGTH ΄ ␴1 Ϫ ua 0 ␴2 Ϫ ua 0 0 0 0 ␴3 Ϫ ua 0 ΅ ΄ ϭ F 202.6 ΅ Co py rig hte dM ate ria l ⅐⅐⅐ Ά u a Ϫ uw 137. The matric suction axis extends orthogonally from the conventional plane of shear stress versus net normal stress.

6 Direct shear testing results for unsaturated Madrid gray clay (data from Escario.com . σ – ua (kPa) (a) 600 500 400 300 200 100 Madrid Gray Clay Shear Stress (kPa) φb φb φb kPa 605 = ua kPa ␴– 55 4 ua = ␴– kPa 00 3 ua = ␴– a 0 kP 1 1 ua = ␴– φb 0 0 200 400 600 800 Matric Suction. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. 1980): (a) peak shear stress as function of net normal stress and (b) peak shear stress as function of matric suction.228 SHEAR STRENGTH 600 Madrid Gray Clay 500 Shear Stress (kPa) –u w Pa 0k 5 =8 Co py rig hte dM ate ria l ua 400 300 ua –u w a kP 00 4 = ua – uw a kP 00 2 = =0 a kP 200 ua – uw φЈ 100 0 0 200 400 600 800 Net Normal Stress. u a – uw (kPa) (b) Figure 6.knovel.

6. 6. This trend is readily seen by comparing the Mohr circles at failure for triaxial tests A. (6. (1978) introduced an additional variable ␾b to capture the increase in shear strength with increasing matric suction. B.com .6b. B and E.4) and Escario’s direct shear test results (Fig. 6. For analysis. indicating the approximate range and variability of these shear strength parameters. suggesting that ␾Ј is effectively independent of matric suction. Comparison between Figs. 6. the shear strength of unsaturated soil generally increases as net normal stress increases. and ␾b is an internal friction angle associated with matric suction that discribes the rate of increase in shear strength relative to matric suction.1). as in saturated soil. Note the failure envelopes at the various levels of applied matric suction for this data are essentially parallel. The third term Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. First.6a. As shown in Fig. ␾Ј Ͼ ␾b. This trend is readily seen by comparing the Mohr circles at failure for triaxial tests A and D. For the range of suction measured in the direct shear testing series.6b.2) describe the conventional M-C criterion for the strength of saturated soil. (ua Ϫ uw)f is the matric suction at failure. The failure envelope is a planar surface in the space of the stress state variables ␴ Ϫ ua and ua Ϫ uw and shear stress ␶ and may be written as (6.1 EXTENDED MOHR-COULOMB (M-C) CRITERION 229 6.1. Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993) summarized the results of ␾b measurements for a variety of soils and showed that ␾b indeed appears to be generally smaller than or equal to the internal friction angle ␾Ј (Table 6. The second trend emerging from the triaxial and direct shear testing results is that shear strength increases as applied matric suction increases.6.4) or by direct examination of the direct shear results on Fig. 6.6b would indicate that the slopes describing the shear strength versus net normal stress envelopes are larger than those describing shear strength versus matric suction.2) where cЈ is the cohesion at zero matric suction and zero net normal stress. and F (Fig. 6.knovel.1 summarizes the results of experimental tests for a variety of soils in the literature. Fredlund et al.6a and 6. 6. as shown on Fig. this trend is captured in the classical M-C failure criterion by introducing the shear strength parameters cohesion cЈ and internal friction angle ␾Ј. that is. Table 6. 6.3 Extended M-C Criterion Co py rig hte dM ate ria l ␶ƒ ϭ cЈ ϩ (␴ Ϫ ua)ƒ tan ␾Ј ϩ (ua Ϫ uw)ƒ tan ␾b Inspection of Blight’s triaxial testing results (Fig. ␾Ј is the angle of internal friction associated with the net normal stress variable. 6. The angle of internal friction may be evaluated from the slope of the failure envelope at zero matric suction. E. (1978) formulated an extended M-C criterion to describe the shear strength behavior of unsaturated soil. or C and F (Fig. The ﬁrst two terms on the right-hand side of eq. Fredlund et al.6a. and C or for tests D. (␴ Ϫ ua)f is the net normal stress on the failure plane at failure.4) or by direct examination of the direct shear results in Fig. the increase in strength with increasing suction appears to be linear.6) demonstrates two general trends in the shear strength behavior of unsaturated soil.

0 rig hte dM ate ␾Ј 230 ␾b (deg) 24. ␳d ϭ 1590 kg/m3 Compacted glacial till.knovel.0 22.2%.0 25. (1960) Bishop et al. w ϭ 21.5 33. ␳d ϭ 1580 kg/m3 Dhanauri clay.6% Dhanauri clay.8 27.9 0. w ϭ 12.7 28.3 28.6 37.3 23.1 Shear Strength Parameters Measured for Wide Variety of Soil Types Soil Type cЈ (kPa) 15. ␳d ϭ 1478 kg/m3 Madrid gray clay.5%.3 (deg) 18.2 12. w ϭ 22. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.6% Boulder clay.0 10.com .8 9. w ϭ 22.4 35.7 16. w ϭ 11.5 References Bishop et al.0 7–25. w ϭ 29% Undisturbed decomposed granite Tappen-Notch Hill silt.5 29.3 16. (1988) Compacted shale. ␳d ϭ 1810 kg/m3 Source: Modiﬁed from Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993).3 20.2%.6 16.2%.1 21. (1989) Gan et al. (1960) Satija (1978) Satija (1978) Escario (1980) Ho and Fredlund (1982) Krahn et al.1 15.TABLE 6. w ϭ 18.

3a) where c1 Ј ϭ ␶ƒ͉(␴Ϫua)ϭ0 ϭ cЈ ϩ (ua Ϫ uw)ƒ tan ␾b (6.3b) Similarly.4a) where c2 Ј ϭ ␶ƒ ͉(uaϪuw)ϭ0 ϭ cЈ ϩ (␴ Ϫ ua)ƒ tan ␾Ј (6. illustrated by the direct shear data of Fig. for a projection of the failure surface to the shear stress versus matric suction plane. For a projection of the failure surface to the shear stress versus net normal stress plane. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.1 EXTENDED MOHR-COULOMB (M-C) CRITERION 231 Co py rig hte dM ate ria l ␶ƒ ϭ c1 Ј ϩ (␴ Ϫ ua)ƒ tan ␾Ј captures the increase in shear strength with increasing matric suction in unsaturated soil. τ τf = cЈ + (ua – uw)f tan φb φb Ma tr ic c Su tio n . the extended M-C criterion may be written as b ␶ƒ ϭ cЈ 2 ϩ (ua Ϫ uw)ƒ tan ␾ (6. illustrated by the direct shear data of Fig.6a. σ – ua Figure 6. The corresponding failure surface for the extended M-C criterion is illustrated in three-dimensional stress space in Fig.6. 6. the extended M-C criterion may be written as (6.knovel. The projection of the failure surface for constant matric suctions leads to a series of straight lines in the space of net normal stress and shear stress. 6.7. The projection of the failure surface for constant net normal stresses leads to a series of straight lines in the space of matric suction and shear stress.7 Extended Mohr-Coulomb failure surface for unsaturated soil. 6.4b) Shear Stress.com .6b. ua –u w φЈ φb Extended M-C Failure Surface φЈ cЈ τf = cЈ + (σ – ua)f tan φЈ Net Normal Stress.

9. From Fig. 6.4 Extended M-C Criterion in Terms of Principal Stresses Co py rig hte dM ate ria l 1 1 ␴␪ Ϫ ua ϭ – 2 (␴1ƒ ϩ ␴3ƒ) Ϫ ua ϩ – 2 (␴1ƒ Ϫ ␴3ƒ) cos 2␪ It is desirable to express the extended M-C criterion in terms of the principal net normal stresses when triaxial tests are used to characterize shear strength behavior.6) The extended M-C criterion can also be rewritten in terms of the principal net normal stresses. 6.5) ␶␪ ϭ – (␴1ƒ Ϫ ␴3ƒ) sin 2␪ 1 2 where ␴1f and ␴3f are the principal total stresses at failure. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. The failure plane is deﬁned at an angle ␪ from the principal net normal stress in the vertical direction. 6.1.com .7) Rearranging the above equation leads to θ = π/4 + φЈ/2 ua – uw ua – uw σ1 – ua σθ – ua ua – uw σ3 – ua τθ σ3 – ua ua – uw Failure Surface σ1 – ua ua – uw Figure 6.8.8 State of stress at failure for triaxial test on unsaturated soil. From the geometric considerations shown in Fig. it can be shown that sin ␾Ј ϭ DC (␴1 Ϫ ␴3)/2 ϭ AC cЈ cot ␾Ј ϩ (␴1 Ϫ ua ϩ ␴3 Ϫ ua)/2 1 (6.knovel.9. The net normal stress and shear stress components acting on the failure plane are (6. the angle ␪ can be related to the angle of internal friction ␾Ј as 1 1 ␪ϭ– 4 ␲ ϩ – 2 ␾Ј (6.232 SHEAR STRENGTH 6. The state of stress at failure for a triaxial test specimen is illustrated in Fig.

2 SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR THE EXTENDED M-C CRITERION 6.9) The extended M-C criterion becomes 1 1 1 1 (␴1 Ϫ ua) ϭ (␴3 Ϫ ua) tan2(– Ј tan(– 4 ␲ ϩ – 2 ␾Ј) ϩ 2c1 4 ␲ ϩ – 2 ␾Ј) (6. ␴1 Ϫ ua ϭ ␴3 Ϫ ua ϩ 2cЈ 1 sin ␾Ј cot ␾Ј ϩ (␴1 Ϫ ua ϩ ␴3 Ϫ ua) sin ␾Ј ␴1 Ϫ ua ϭ 1 ϩ sin ␾Ј cos ␾Ј (␴ Ϫ ua) ϩ 2cЈ 1 Ϫ sin ␾Ј 3 1 Ϫ sin ␾Ј 1 (6. 6.6. τ c1 Ј = cЈ + (ua – uw)f tan φb Co py rig hte dM ate ria l D τf = cЈ 1 + (σ – ua )f tan φЈ cЈ 1 2θ φЈ O A σ3 – ua C B σ1 – ua Net Normal Stress.9 Mohr circle representation of failure envelope in space of net normal stress and shear stress.10a) where b cЈ 1 ϭ cЈ ϩ (ua Ϫ uw) tan ␾ (6.1 Interpretation of Triaxial Testing Results The shear strength parameters cЈ.2 SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR THE EXTENDED M-C CRITERION 233 Shear Stress.10b) thus allowing the shear strength parameters ␾Ј.com . This section contains two example Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. ␾b.8) and since ␲ ␾Ј 1 ϩ sin ␾Ј ϭ tan2 ϩ 1 Ϫ sin ␾Ј 4 2 ͩ ͪ cos ␾Ј ␲ ␾Ј ϭ tan ϩ 1 Ϫ sin ␾Ј 4 2 ͩ ͪ (6.2. ␾Ј. and cЈ to be solved analytically from the results of laboratory tests.knovel. σ – ua Figure 6. and ␾b can be determined by conducting laboratory direct shear or triaxial tests.

com .10a) and the results of test 1.11a) and from test 2 it can be shown that 1 1 1 1 108 ϭ 28 tan2(– Ј tan(– 4 ␲ ϩ – 2 ␾Ј) ϩ 2c1 4 ␲ ϩ – 2 ␾Ј) (6. ␾Ј. Ά ␴1 Ϫ ua ␴2 Ϫ ua ␴3 Ϫ ua · Ά· ϭ ϭ 60 ua Ϫ uw 10 14 kPa ⅐ ⅐ ⅐ ua Ϫ uw ϭ 10 kPa 14 ua Ϫ uw 10 Ά · Ά· Test 2: Ά Ά Ά ␴1 Ϫ ua ␴2 Ϫ ua ␴3 Ϫ ua · Ά · · Ά · ϭ 108 ua Ϫ uw 10 28 kPa ⅐ ⅐ ⅐ ua Ϫ uw ϭ 10 kPa 28 ua Ϫ uw 10 Ά Ά Ά · Ά· · Ά· · Ά· Test 3: ␴1 Ϫ ua ␴2 Ϫ ua ␴3 Ϫ ua 115 ua Ϫ uw 70 14 kPa ⅐ ⅐ ⅐ ua Ϫ uw ϭ 70 kPa 14 ua Ϫ uw 70 Test 4: ␴1 Ϫ ua ␴2 Ϫ ua ␴3 Ϫ ua · Ά · ϭ 160 ua Ϫ uw 70 28 kPa ⅐ ⅐ ⅐ ua Ϫ uw ϭ 70 kPa 28 ua Ϫ uw 70 Determine the shear strength parameters cЈ. eliminating cЈ 1 from the above equations leads to Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.11b) Because cЈ 1 depends on matric suction but is independent of the net normal stress.1 A series of triaxial tests was conducted for four identically prepared specimens of unsaturated silty soil. Co py rig hte dM ate ria l Test 1: Example Problem 6. Solution From eq.234 SHEAR STRENGTH problems to illustrate the interpretation of triaxial and direct shear results and to demonstrate the subsequent construction of the extended M-C failure surface. (6. Therefore. The following matrices describe the state of stress at failure for each test. and ␾b from the results of the testing series and construct the extended M-C failure surface. tests 1 and 2 conducted under the same matric suction of 10 kPa have the same c1 Ј.knovel. it can be shown that 1 1 1 1 60 ϭ 14 tan2(– Ј tan(– 4 ␲ ϩ – 2 ␾Ј) ϩ 2c1 4 ␲ ϩ – 2 ␾Ј) (6.

and c Ј are shown as an extended M-C diagram in Fig.com . matric suction.25Њ ϩ 31.knovel. 6. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.25Њ Substituting this value of ␾ Ј into eq.12) and (6.14) Substituting eqs. as well as the corresponding planar failure surface described by the material variables ␾ Ј.10. (6.2Њ) (6. tests 3 and 4 at matric suction equal to 70 kPa lead to 1 1 1 1 115 ϭ 14 tan2(– Ј tan(– 4 ␲ ϩ – 2 ␾Ј) ϩ 2c1 4 ␲ ϩ – 2 ␾Ј) 60 Ϫ 14 tan2(61.8 kPa 2 tan(61. (6.2Њ) ϭ 18. These circles.8 ϭ c Ј ϩ 70 tan ␾b Solving the above equations leads to ␾b ϭ 14.6Њ) (6.70Њ The fact that similar values of ␾Ј are computed for both levels of matric suction supports the previous observation from Escario’s direct shear data (Fig.6Њ c Ј ϭ 0. 6.13a) leads to c1 Јϭ 115 Ϫ 14 tan2(61. ␾ b.10b) results in 3. (6.47Њ.6Њ) ϭ 3.2 SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR THE EXTENDED M-C CRITERION 235 48 2 1 1 –– 14 ϭ tan (– 4 ␲ ϩ – 2 ␾Ј) ␾Ј ϭ 33. Substituting this value into eq. and net normal stress.14) and the corresponding matric suction values of 10 and 70 kPa back to eq. (6.11a) leads to Co py rig hte dM ate ria l cЈ 1 ϭ (6.2 ϭ c Ј ϩ 10 tan ␾b 18.2 kPa 2 tan(61.6a) that the angle of internal friction is essentially independent of matric suction.12) Similarly.6 kPa The states of stress at failure may be plotted as Mohr’s circles in the threedimensional space of shear stress.13b) where eliminating the common parameter c Ј 1 leads to 45 2 1 1 –– 14 ϭ tan (– 4 ␲ ϩ – 2 ␾Ј) ␾Ј ϭ 31. The average friction angle is (33.13a) and 1 1 1 1 160 ϭ 28 tan2(– Ј tan(– 4 ␲ ϩ – 2 ␾Ј) ϩ 2c 1 4 ␲ ϩ – 2 ␾Ј) (6.6.70Њ) ϭ 32.

σ – ua (kPa) Figure 6.2 Interpretation of Direct Shear Testing Results Example Problem 6. The states of stress at failure for each test are as follows: Test 1: ua Ϫ uw ϭ 0 kPa ␶f ϭ 65 kPa (␴ Ϫ ua)ƒ ϭ 110 kPa Test 2: ua Ϫ uw ϭ 0 kPa ␶f ϭ 160 kPa (␴ Ϫ ua)ƒ ϭ 300 kPa Test 3: ua Ϫ uw ϭ 400 kPa ␶ƒ ϭ 185 kPa (␴ Ϫ ua)ƒ ϭ 110 kPa Test 4: ua Ϫ uw ϭ 400 kPa ␶ƒ ϭ 285 kPa (␴ Ϫ ua)ƒ ϭ 300 kPa Determine the shear strength parameters c Ј.2. 6. (6.236 Shear Stress. and ␾ b from the results of the testing series and construct the extended M-C failure surface.3a) results in Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. Solution Substituting the failure states of stress for tests 1 and 2 into eq. τ (kPa) SHEAR STRENGTH Co py rig hte dM ate ria l 100 4 3 1 2 tric Ma nu tio c Su a –u w a) (kP ua – uw = 70 kPa ua – uw = 10 kPa 0 100 200 300 Net Normal Stress.com .1 and corresponding extended Mohr-Coulomb failure surface.2 A series of direct shear tests modiﬁed for matric suction control was conducted for four identically prepared specimens of unsaturated silty soil.10 States of stress at failure for four triaxial tests from Example Problem 6. ␾ Ј.knovel.

6Њ ϩ 27.4a) and (6.0 kPa ␾b ϭ 16. the angle ␾b may be obtained by considering the state of stress at failure for a constant net normal stress by considering eqs.6.3Њ The Mohr’s circle representation of the state of stress for each test at failure and the corresponding extended M-C failure surface are shown in Fig.1 kPa 1 Therefore.1 ϭ c Ј ϩ 400 tan ␾b which leads to c Ј ϭ 10. Alternatively. Substituting the stresses at failure for tests 1 and 3 into these equations leads to 65 ϭ c Ј 2 ϩ 0 b 185 ϭ c Ј 2 ϩ 400 tan ␾ or c2 Ј ϭ 65 kPa ␾b ϭ 16.1 kPa for u Ϫ u ϭ 400 kPa back into eq.com . Substituting ␾Ј ϭ 27.3a) results in 185 ϭ c Ј 1 ϩ 110 tan ␾Ј 285 ϭ c 1 Ј ϩ 300 tan ␾Ј which may be solved to give values of ␾Ј and c Ј 1 at ua Ϫ uw ϭ 400 kPa as ␾Ј ϭ 27. substituting the failure stress states for tests 3 and 4 into eq. (6.11.8Њ) ϭ 27.7Њ Substituting the stresses at failure for tests 2 and 4 leads to 160 ϭ c Ј 2 or 285 ϭ c 2 Ј ϩ 400 tan ␾b Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. (6. and cЈ ϭ 127.3b) leads to 1 a w 10.8Њ ␾Ј ϭ 26.0 kPa c1 Ј ϭ 127. 6.2 SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR THE EXTENDED M-C CRITERION 237 65 ϭ c 1 Ј ϩ 110 tan ␾Ј 160 ϭ c Ј 1 ϩ 300 tan ␾Ј which may be solved to give values of ␾Ј and c Ј 1 at ua Ϫ uw ϭ 0 as follows: Co py rig hte dM ate ria l Similarly. the average friction angle is as follows: ␾Ј ϭ – 2 (26.4b).2Њ. (6.6Њ cЈ 1 ϭ 10.0 ϭ c Ј ϩ 0 tan ␾b 127. c Ј ϭ 10.0 kPa for u 1 a Ϫ uw ϭ 0.knovel.2Њ.

4Њ Equation (6. τ (kPa) u a –u w (kP a) Ma tric Su cti on 4 3 Co py rig hte dM ate ria l 400 400 ua – uw = 400 kPa 200 200 400 600 800 200 2 1 ua – uw = 0 kPa 0 200 400 600 800 Net Normal Stress. Most notably.7 kPa ␾Ј ϭ 26. there is signiﬁcant experimental evidence showing that the angle describing the increase in shear strength with respect to matric suction ␾ b is a highly nonlinear function of matric suction (e.. several important factors may limit its general validity over a wide range of matric suction.com .3.2 and corresponding extended Mohr-Coulomb failure surface.1 Despite the simplicity of the extended M-C criterion for describing the strength of unsaturated soil.. The value of ␾ b for a given soil can vary from a value equal or close Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.238 SHEAR STRENGTH Shear Stress. Escario et al. 1988.. σ – ua (kPa) Figure 6.g. cЈ 2 ϭ 160 kPa ␾b ϭ 17. 1989.. 1996).4b) and the results of tests 1 and 2 lead to 65 ϭ c Ј ϩ 110 tan ␾Ј 160 ϭ c Ј ϩ 300 tan ␾Ј or c Ј ϭ 9.11 States of stress at failure for four direct shear tests from Example Problem 6.knovel.3 EFFECTIVE STRESS AND THE M-C CRITERION Nonlinearity in the Extended M-C Envelope 6. Vanapalli et al.6Њ 6. Gan et al.

500 5. ua – uw (kPa) (b) Figure 6. shows a con- Shear Stress. ␴ – ua = 120 kPa 0 0 2.3 EFFECTIVE STRESS AND THE M-C CRITERION 239 Co py rig hte dM ate ria l 200 150 100 50 0 to the internal friction angle ␾Ј for suctions near zero (i.6.13. The parameter ␾ b describes the slope of the failure envelopes.500 10. Note that a regime of apparent softening behavior is observed for both soils where the value of ␾ b either decreases (Fig. Figures 6. Both sets of data are in the form of shear strength (peak shear stress) as a function of matric suction. each determined using direct shear systems modiﬁed for control of matric suction by axis translation. 1989).12b). τ (kPa) 0 100 200 300 400 500 Matric Suction.knovel.12a and 6. 6..000 7. Figure 6.000 Matric Suction. for example.. τ (kPa) Red Silty Clay.e. 6.12 Examples of nonlinear behavior in relationship between shear strength and matric suction: (a) data from modiﬁed direct shear tests for unsaturated glacial till (Gan et al.12b show examples of experimental results demonstrating nonlinear behavior in ␾ b.500 15.com .12a) or becomes negative (Fig. 1988) and (b) data from modiﬁed direct shear tests for two clayey materials (Escario et al. ␴ – ua = 120 kPa Madrid Gray Clay.. There is a direct correspondence between the nonlinear nature of the shear strength envelope with respect to increasing matric suction and the behavior of the soil-water characteristic curve. ua – uw (kPa) (a) 1000 750 500 250 Shear Stress. near the saturated condition) to as low as 0Њ or even negative values for suctions approaching the residual saturation state.000 12. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.

however.240 SHEAR STRENGTH Co py rig hte dM ate ria l Figure 6. 1996). the geometries of the interparticle pore water menisci dramatically change. As drainage continues through this zone of desaturation. Within the regime of relatively low matric suction and prior to the air-entry pressure.. the shear strength envelope is approximately linear.13 Conceptual relationship between soil-water characteristic curve and unsaturated shear strength envelope (modiﬁed from Vanapalli et al. 6. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.13a) and the corresponding shear strength envelope with respect to increasing matric suction (Fig.com ceptualized soil-water characteristic curve along a drainage path (Fig.knovel. and ␾ b is effectively equal to the angle of internal friction ␾Ј. Beyond the air-entry pressure. 6. thus affecting the resultant interparticle forces that contribute to stress on the soil . The contribution of matric suction to shear strength within this range may be treated within the conventional M-C framework for saturated soil where the pore pressure is in this case a negative value. a regime of nonlinear behavior commences that corresponds to drainage of the soil pores.13b) for a typical soil. the soil pores remain essentially saturated.

and the second extending beyond the air-entry pressure with a slope equal to ␾ b. or (3) by discretizing the envelope into several linear segments with varying ␾ b angles. For completely dry soil. effective stress in unsaturated soil can be deﬁned by jointly using the independent state variables: net normal stress ␴ Ϫ ua and matric suction ua Ϫ uw. Bishop’s effective stress is ␴Ј ϭ (␴ Ϫ ua) ϩ ␹(ua Ϫ uw) (6. and eq. In engineering scenarios where anticipated suction values are expected to extend beyond the regime where ␾ b may be considered independent of suction.3 EFFECTIVE STRESS AND THE M-C CRITERION 241 Co py rig hte dM ate ria l 6. The reduction in the volume of pore water within this regime effectively reduces the contribution that matric suction has toward increasing shear strength. the interparticle forces contributing to shear strength over a wide range of the desaturation regime for real soil systems remain poorly understood. At the present time.knovel. (2) by neglecting the nonlinearity and adopting a conservative envelope over the entire suction range with a slope equal to ␾ b. and one material variable: the effective stress parameter ␹. the ﬁrst extending from the point of saturation (zero suction) to the air-entry pressure with a slope equal to ␾Ј. As initially proposed by Bishop (1959).com .2 Effective Stress Approach skeleton and ultimately contribute to shear strength. For saturated soil. As introduced in previous chapters. The micromechanical analyses presented in Chapters 4 and 5 for idealized two-particle systems provide basic insight into the evolution of interparticle forces for a limited portion of the desaturation regime.6.15) reduces to Terzaghi’s classical effective stress equation: ␴Ј ϭ ␴ Ϫ uw. the water pressure is compressive or positive.15) The effective stress parameter ␹ is a function of the degree of saturation of the soil mass and reﬂects the contribution of matric suction to effective stress. For analysis purposes. where ␾ b Ͻ ␾Ј. One logical way to describe the dependency of shear strength on matric suction is to follow the classical soil mechanics formalism using effective stress and the conventional M-C failure criterion.3. ␹ is equal to one. ␹ is equal to zero and the effective stress is the difference between total Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. thus requiring minimum modiﬁcation to the existing elastoplastic theories of stress-strain or constitutive laws that have been implemented in many numerical codes. the general validity and applicability of the extended M-C approach begins to come into question. Fredlund et al. however. (6. the air pressure is equal to zero. (1987) suggest that the nonlinearity in the relationship between shear strength and matric suction may be handled in one of several ways: (1) by dividing the failure envelope into two linear portions. A practical advantage of the effective stress approach is that it remains ﬁrmly within the context of classical soil mechanics.

One such model was developed in Sections 4. the principal net normal stresses ␴1 Ϫ ua and ␴3 Ϫ ua and matric suction ua Ϫ uw are known and the M-C criterion can be written as Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. The effective stress parameter ␹ may not be directly measured or controlled through experiments. have focused primarily on considerations of meniscus geometry for simple capillary models employing the Young-Laplace equation to connect an idealized meniscus geometry and volume (or degree of saturation) to capillary stress and matric suction.2 for spherical coarse-grained particles in simple cubic and tetrahedral packing order.3 Measurements of ␹ at Failure In a typical direct shear test the net total stress (␴ Ϫ ua) is known and the net effective stress can be deduced from the shear stress at failure. by measuring or controlling the matric suction variable ua Ϫ uw. Hence.16b) where ␶ƒ is shear strength and c Ј and ␾Ј are the effective cohesion and friction angle. for example.16b) ␹ƒ ϭ ␶ƒ Ϫ c Ј Ϫ (␴ Ϫ ua)ƒ tan ␾Ј (ua Ϫ uw)ƒ tan ␾Ј (6. leads to ␶ƒ ϭ c Ј ϩ [(␴ Ϫ ua)ƒ ϩ ␹ƒ(ua Ϫ uw)ƒ] tan ␾Ј (6. For the development in Chapters 4 and 5. (6. respectively.3. however. is that they are only valid for the regime of saturation where the meniscus geometry is well deﬁned. For partially saturated soil. Theoretical endeavors. ␹ is some function of the degree of saturation or matric suction. 5. this regime corresponds to the pendular regime of discontinuous water menisci and a degree of saturation less than about 25%. The traditional M-C criterion was used to represent the failure conditions: (6. after substitution of the effective stress expression (6.17) In a typical triaxial test.16a) which.15).5.242 SHEAR STRENGTH Co py rig hte dM ate ria l ␶ƒ ϭ c Ј ϩ ␴Ј tan ␾Ј stress and air pressure: ␴ Ј ϭ ␴ Ϫ ua. However. Bishop (1954) proposed an indirect way to obtain ␹ from the stresses measured in soil specimens at failure.1.knovel. An important limitation of these types of theoretical analyses. the effective stress parameter ␹ can be evaluated by rearranging eq. some empirical relationships have been suggested.com . and 5. 6. For higher degrees of saturation. Research over the past 30 years has demonstrated that capturing the dependency of the effective stress parameter ␹ on the degree of saturation or suction is an extremely challenging task. but no analytical relation between the ␹ parameter and the degree of saturation has been reported.

55 for ua Ϫ uw Ͼ ue (6.6.18a) where Co py rig hte dM ate ria l c1 Ј ϭ c Ј ϩ ␹ƒ(ua Ϫ uw) tan ␾Ј (6.knovel. (6.com . Following this general strategy.15a.18a) leads to ␹ƒ ϭ (␴1 Ϫ ua)ƒ Ϫ (␴3 Ϫ ua)ƒ tan2(␲ /4 ϩ ␾Ј /2) Ϫ 2c Ј tan(␲ /4 ϩ ␾Ј /2) 2(ua Ϫ uw) tan(␲ /4 ϩ ␾Ј /2) tan ␾Ј (6. 6. A ﬁt of eq. (6. and sand from Escario and Juca (1989). Based on a best ﬁt to the experimental data presented in Fig.15b.20) for ua Ϫ uw Յ ue where ue is a suction value marking the transition between saturated and unsaturated states.14.21) Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. 6. Other measurements and mathematical representations of ␹ have been reported as a function of the degree of saturation or as a function of matric suction. Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) proposed a form of ␹ as a function of suction ratio (ua Ϫ uw)/ ue as follows: ␹ϭ Ά ͩ 1 ua Ϫ uw ue ͪ Ϫ0. Bishop (1959) proposed a nonlinear form of ␹ based on direct shear tests taken to failure. 6. shown as a function of degree of saturation in Fig. the following two forms showed good ﬁt to the experimental results: ␹ ϭ S␬ ϭ ͩͪ ␪ ␪s ␬ (6. for example. 6. a one-toone relationship between ␹ and degree of saturation can be established. For matric suction ranging between 0 and 1500 kPa. silt.20) to the experimental data shown in Fig. being the air-expulsion pressure for a wetting process and the air-entry pressure for a drying process. The validity of several forms of ␹ as a function of the degree of saturation was also examined by Vanapalli and Fredlund (2000) using a series of shear strength test results for statically compacted mixtures of clay.3 EFFECTIVE STRESS AND THE M-C CRITERION 243 1 1 1 1 (␴1 Ϫ ua)ƒ ϭ (␴3 Ϫ ua)ƒ tan2(– Ј tan(– 4 ␲ ϩ – 2 ␾Ј) ϩ 2c1 4 ␲ ϩ – 2 ␾Ј) (6.18b) Rearranging eq.19) Since the matric suction at failure may be used to indirectly deﬁne the degree of saturation by way of the soil-water characteristic curve.15a is illustrated in Fig.

6 0. (6. (6. the effective stress at failure for unsaturated soil can be expressed as Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.2 κ=1 κ=2 κ=3 Sr = 20% 0.15). where S is the degree of saturation. S (%) 100 Figure 6.22) is illustrated in Fig.22) Co py rig hte dM ate ria l Effective Stress Parameter.0 eq. 6. and ␬ is a ﬁtting parameter optimized to obtain a best ﬁt between measured and predicted values. (6.244 SHEAR STRENGTH 1. (6. 6. ␪s is the saturated volumetric water content. χ 0.14 for several values of ␬ and Sr. ␪ is volumetric water content. The nature of eqs.21) eq.com .22) where ␪r is residual volumetric water content and Sr is residual degree of saturation.8 0. and ␹ϭ S Ϫ Sr ␪ Ϫ ␪r ϭ 1 Ϫ Sr ␪s Ϫ ␪r (6.21) and (6.4 Reconciliation between ␾ b and ␹f From eq.knovel.4 Bishop (1959) Sr = 10% 0.14 Various forms for effective stress parameter ␹ as function of degree of saturation.3.0 0 20 40 60 80 Degree of Saturation.

knovel.2 Satija (1978). (1996). glacial till 0.0 0. sandy clay Fredlund et al. colluvium Blight (1967). sandy clay + Gan et al. (6. residual DeCampos and Carrillo (1995).24) Comparing the above equation with the extended M-C failure criterion [eq. glacial till Wheeler and Sivakumar (1995).1 10 100 Matric Suction. 1998). silt-low -plasticity clay DeCampos and Carrillo (1995). clayey sand x Maswaswe (1985).6.3 EFFECTIVE STRESS AND THE M-C CRITERION 245 1.3 * 0. (1989). silt Satija (1978).23) If effective stress is considered the state variable for shear strength.5 x + * x χ x 0.21)] in terms of the angle ␾ b leads to Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. silty sand Cui and Delage (1993). (1988). kaolin * Escario and Saez (1986). ua – uw (kPa) (a) 1000 Figure 6. ␴Ј ƒ ϭ (␴n Ϫ ua)ƒ ϩ ␹ƒ(ua Ϫ uw)ƒ (6.15 Effective stress parameter ␹ as function of (a) matric suction and (b) matric suction ratio (after Khalili and Khabbaz. high-density clay Drumright (1989). low-density clay Vanapalli et al. (1995).8 Co py rig hte dM ate ria l x + * + 0. the M-C criterion can be rewritten as ␶ƒ ϭ c Ј ϩ ␴Ј n tan ␾Ј ϭ c Ј ϩ [(␴n Ϫ ua)ƒ ϩ ␹ƒ(ua Ϫ uw)] tan ␾Ј ϭ c Ј ϩ (␴n Ϫ ua)ƒ tan ␾Ј ϩ ␹ƒ(ua Ϫ uw) tan ␾Ј (6. glacial till Krahn et al.com .

(ua – uw)/(ue) (b) Effective Stress Parameter. it can be shown that ␶ƒ ϭ c Ј ϩ (␴n Ϫ ua)ƒ tan ␾Ј ϩ (ua Ϫ uw)ƒ ͩͪ ␪ ␪s ␬ tan ␾Ј (6.22).26) or ␶ƒ ϭ c Ј ϩ (␴n Ϫ ua)ƒ tan ␾Ј ϩ (ua Ϫ uw)ƒ ␪ Ϫ ␪r tan ␾Ј ␪s Ϫ ␪r (6. Taking eqs.21) and (6.27) Comparing the above two equations with the extended M-C criterion [eq.25) where ƒ1 and ƒ2 represent functional relationships between ␾ b and ua Ϫ uw and ␾ b and S.com . (6.2)] Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. tan ␾ b ϭ ␹ƒ tan ␾Ј ϭ ƒ1(ua Ϫ uw) ϭ ƒ2(S) (6. (6. for example.246 SHEAR STRENGTH Co py rig hte dM ate ria l Suction Ratio.15 (Continued ). χ Figure 6.knovel. respectively.

(6. (6. Mean effective stresses at failure were calculated from suction-controlled triaxial shear strength testing data using eqs.15)] proposed by Bishop (1959) and the effective stress parameter function [eq.21) and (6.com .20)] proposed by Khalili and Khabbaz (1998).31) which are eqs. (2004). Note that for ␹ equal to 1. 6. (6.5 Validity of Effective Stress as a State Variable for Strength Much experimental evidence such as the null tests described in Section 5.25) dictates that the angle ␾b be equal to the angle ␾Ј.3. 6.6. For ␹ less than 1.3 EFFECTIVE STRESS AND THE M-C CRITERION 247 ␶ƒ ϭ c Ј ϩ (␴ Ϫ ua)ƒ tan ␾Ј ϩ (ua Ϫ uw)ƒ tan ␾ b (6. (6.22).20) and the known matric suction values.30) ␹ƒ ϭ ␪ Ϫ ␪r ␪s Ϫ ␪r (6. where several sets of experimental data were interpreted to assess the validity of the effective stress equation [eq. Deviatoric stresses were calculated using eq.2) it becomes clear that Co py rig hte dM ate ria l (6.5 indicates that the behavior of unsaturated soil can be effectively described by the effective stress principle. eq.28) or tan ␾ b ϭ ␪ Ϫ ␪r tan ␾Ј ␪s Ϫ ␪r tan ␾ b ϭ ͩͪ ␪ ␪s ␬ tan ␾Ј (6.25) into the above equations leads to two speciﬁc functional forms for the effective stress parameter: ␹ƒ ϭ ͩͪ ␪ ␪s ␬ (6.4.29) Substituting eq. which corresponds to unsaturated conditions and the nonlinear portion of the shear strength envelope with respect to matric suction.15) and (6.15) and the expression Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel. It was shown that the critical state line (CSL) can be used to uniquely describe the state of stress at failure in the mean effective stress–deviatoric stress ( pЈ Ϫ qЈ) plane for both saturated and unsaturated states.13b).0. eq. (6. Application of the effective stress principle to unsaturated soil was recently examined by Khalili et al.0. which corresponds to conditions near saturation and the linear portion of the shear strength envelope with respect to matric suction (Fig. (6.25) dictates that the angle ␾b be less than ␾Ј. (6. (6.

deﬁned using saturated test data. Determine the functional relationship between the effective stress parameter ␹ and the degree of saturation S. indicating that a unique failure envelope exists for each of these soils if the effective stress approach is employed. Sion silt (Geiser.1 This section describes two example problems to illustrate procedures for determining shear strength parameters from unsaturated shear strength experiments and the conventional (nonextended) M-C failure criterion. Example Problem 6. 6. Solution From tests 1 and 2.com . 6. the cohesion intercept and friction angle under saturated conditions may be calculated as c Ј ϭ 40 kPa and ␾ Ј ϭ 40Њ. Determine the shear strength parameters c Ј and ␾Ј. The effective stress parameter ␹ is shown as a function of saturation in Fig. 1996). 1995). It is assumed that c Ј and ␾ Ј remain constant for all degrees of saturation.4 SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR THE M-C CRITERION Interpretation of Direct Shear Testing Results 6.32) Co py rig hte dM ate ria l aϭ (6. The soil-water characteristic curve is plotted in Fig.17b. Plot matric suction and the effective stress parameter as functions of saturation.3 A series of direct shear and soil-water characteristic curve tests were conducted for an unsaturated clay-sand mixture. 1999). Equation (6. the effective stress parameter function ␹(S) follows the concave Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. 6.17a.. as tabulated in Table 6.33c) Figure 6. respectively. 1995).33a) 1 pϭ– 2 (␴1 ϩ ␴3) 6c Ј cos ␾Ј 3 Ϫ sin ␾Ј 6 sin ␾Ј 3 Ϫ sin ␾Ј (6.2. Trois-Rivieres silt (Maa ˆ touk et al.knovel.4.3. As shown. most data points plot close to the critical state line. Results are tabulated in Table 6. As shown.16 illustrates the state of stress at failure in pЈ Ϫ qЈ space for four different soils: kaolin (Wheeler and Sivakumar.17) can be used to calculate ␹ for each test.248 SHEAR STRENGTH q Ј ϭ a ϩ [( p Ϫ ua) ϩ ␹(ua Ϫ uw)]M where (6.33b) Mϭ (6. and Jossigny silt (Cui and Delage. The results show maximum deviatoric stress (peak shear strength) versus the mean effective stress at several different values of matric suction.

1996) Deviatoric Stress. q (kPa) 1800 Saturated CSL (M = 1.05) 600 0 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 Mean Effective Stress.. p (kPa) (a ) 2400 Sion Silt. 1999) Jossigny Silt. Suction = 50–280 kPa (Geiser.4 SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR THE M-C CRITERION 249 1000 Kaolin. 2004. Suction = 0–300 kPa (Wheeler and Sivakumar.com .5) 400 CSL (M = 0.. Saturated and Unsaturated (Maatouk et al.knovel. 1995) ^ Trois-Rivieres Silt. 1995) 800 Co py rig hte dM ate ria l Deviatoric Stress. Suction = 0–1500 kPa (Cui and Delage. 1999) and Jossigny silt (Cui and Delage. p (kPa) (b ) Figure 6.) Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.81) 200 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Mean Effective Stress.6. (Data from Khalili et al. 1995) and (b) Sion silt (Geiser.3) 1200 Saturated CSL (M = 1.16 Peak strength at several values of matric suction for four unsaturated soils in pЈ Ϫ qЈ space: (a) kaolin (Wheeler and Sivakumar. q (kPa) 600 Saturated CSL (M = 1.. 1996). 1995) and Trois-Rivieres silt (Maatouk et al.

Again.000 15.000 2.309 0.71 0.031 0.000 1. Results for tests under different levels of matric suctions are tabulated in Table 6.3 Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ua Ϫ uw (kPa) 0 0 25 500 1.086 0.049 0.000 11.3 Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 u a Ϫ uw (kPa) 0 0 25 500 1. Determine c Ј and ␾Ј and plot the functional relationship between the effective stress parameter and matric suction.71 0.009 Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.000 11.000 50.64 0.2 Interpretation of Triaxial Testing Results Example Problem 6.000 0.4 A series of triaxial tests was conducted on specimens of unsaturated sandy soil.64 0.com .5.0 1.000 5.45 0.250 SHEAR STRENGTH TABLE 6. 6.98 0.4.knovel.4.0 1.19) can TABLE 6.000 2.3 Effective Stress Parameters Calculated for Example Problem 6.78 0.000 50.2 1. Solution The cohesion and friction angle under saturated conditions may be calculated from test 1 as c Ј ϭ 0 kPa and ␾Ј ϭ 37Њ.45 0.0 0. Equation (6.380 0. 6.000 ␴ Ϫ ua ␶ S 1.21) if ␬ ϭ 3.14 and is closely matched by eq.000 5.98 0.2 (kPa) 300 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 (kPa) 292 141 160 300 400 460 500 590 530 525 Co py rig hte dM ate ria l upward pattern noted previously in Fig. it is assumed that c Ј and ␾ Ј remain constant for all degrees of saturation.000 15.35 0.35 0.38 0. (6.38 0.2 Results of Shear Strength and Soil-Water Characteristic Curve Tests for Example Problem 6.190 0.000 ␴ Ϫ ua ␶ S (kPa) 300 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 (kPa) 292 141 160 300 400 460 500 590 530 525 ␹ 1.78 0.0 0.920 0.

2 0.2 0.17 Soil-water characteristic curve and effective stress parameter function for Example Problem 6.6 0. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.4 0.4 0.0 0. S 0.4 0.5 0.6 ␹ = S␬ κ = 3.0 (b ) Figure 6.3: (a) ␺(S) and (b) ␹(S).com .4 SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR THE M-C CRITERION 251 105 104 Co py rig hte dM ate ria l Matric Suction. S (a ) 1. χ 0.knovel.8 1. ua – uw (kPa) 103 102 101 100 0.8 Effective Stress Parameter.0 0.8 1.0 Degree of Saturation.6.0 0.2 0.6 Degree of Saturation.0 0.

1.15a. As shown.4 Results of Shear Strength Tests for Example Problem 6. 6. On one hand.com . one must appreciate the nonlinear nature of the relationship between strength and suction and construct a nonplanar failure surface in three-dimensional space of shear strength. matric suction. The M-C criterion incorporating both Bishop’s effective stress and the suction stress concept expressed by eq. and net normal stress. the relationship is generally linear in log-log scale. introducing the constant internal friction angle with respect to matric suction ␾b provides a relatively simple mathematical and graphical representation of the shear strength envelope.252 SHEAR STRENGTH TABLE 6. 6.5. as plotted in Fig. To fully describe the shear strength behavior of unsaturated soil over a realistically wide range.1 Capillary Cohesion as a Characteristic Function for Unsaturated Soil In the extended M-C criterion presented in Section 6.knovel.3.16b) can be rearranged as Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. (6. the experimental evidence described in Section 6.5 UNIFIED REPRESENTATION OF FAILURE ENVELOPE 6.18. On the other hand.4 Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ua Ϫ uw (kPa) 0 20 50 200 300 400 500 800 ␴1 Ϫ ua ␴3 Ϫ ua (kPa) 200 250 280 290 300 310 320 340 (kPa) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Co py rig hte dM ate ria l be used to calculate ␹ for each test. It has become increasingly clear that material variables are required to do so. matric suction is used as an independent stress state variable along with net normal stress for describing unsaturated shear strength. 6. the practical advantages of the extended M-C criterion may no longer be sufﬁcient to warrant its applicability for the expected range of matric suction in practical problems. Reconciliation between Bishop’s effective stress concept and the extended M-C criterion can be achieved by an alternative approach for describing the state of stress and strength in unsaturated soil.1 necessitates consideration of the strong functional dependency between ␾b and matric suction for suctions greater than the air-entry pressure. as also noted by the data in Fig. In this light.

␶ƒ ϭ c Ј ϩ ␹ƒ(ua Ϫ uw)ƒ tan ␾Ј ϩ (␴ Ϫ ua)ƒ tan ␾Ј ϭ c Ј ϩ c ؆ ϩ (␴ Ϫ ua)ƒ tan ␾Ј (6. ␹ ƒ(ua Ϫ uw)f . The relationship between capillary cohesion and the maximum suction stress at failure.5 UNIFIED REPRESENTATION OF FAILURE ENVELOPE 253 1. the third term represents frictional shearing resistance provided by the effective normal force at the grain contacts. capillary cohesion describes the mobilization of suction stress [␹(ua Ϫ uw)] in terms of shearing resistance.knovel. represent shear strength due to so-called apparent cohesion in unsaturated soil.01 1 10 100 Matric Suction. c Ј and c ؆.4. (6. Physically.com . χ 0.18 Effective stress parameter as a function of matric suction from Example Problem 6.6. The term c ؆ is deﬁned as capillary cohesion hereafter. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. is deﬁned by eq.10 0.34a).34b) The ﬁrst two terms in eq.000 Figure 6. The apparent cohesion captured by the ﬁrst two terms includes the classical cohesion c Ј representing shearing resistance arising from interparticle physicochemical forces such as van der Waals attraction.34a) where c ؆ ϭ ␹ƒ(ua Ϫ uw)ƒ tan ␾Ј (6.00 Co py rig hte dM ate ria l Effective Stress Parameter. ua – uw (kPa) 1. and a second term c ؆ describing shearing resistance arising from capillarity effects.34b). As in saturated soil. (6.

19 Shear strength surface in space of net normal stress. One unique feature of graphical representation in this space is that the failure surface remains planar no matter whether the soil is unsaturated or saturated. τ The concepts of suction stress and capillary cohesion may be better illustrated by plotting eq. suction stress is an internal stress that results speciﬁcally from the partial saturation of the soil. Physically. The deﬁnitions of suction stress and capillary cohesion are logical extensions of the classical M-C criterion and Terzaghi’s effective stress principle. σn – ua Figure 6. This feature makes it possible to represent the entire failure surface in the net normal stress and shear stress plane by plotting constant suction stress lines. and c ؆ is the additional resistance evident in the nonzero suction stress envelope. and shear stress. net normal stress. and suction stress. 6. suction stress.com . The intersections with the net normal stress axis in either case deﬁne the tensile strength of the soil. Suction stress is independent of external loading ) uw Su c n tio St re (u a . as shown in Fig.34) in the three-dimensional space of shear stress. 6. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. Capillary cohesion associated with the nonzero suction stress (the upper envelope) is apparent from the intersection of the envelope with the shear stress axis.20 shows this projection for two values of suction stress: one for zero suction stress and one for an arbitrary nonzero value.254 SHEAR STRENGTH Co py rig hte dM ate ria l Shear Stress.χ s s – φЈ τf = cЈ + χ(u a – u w) tan φЈ + (σ – u a) tan φЈ φЈ cЈ Net Normal Stress. Fig. The total intercept value is equal to c Ј ϩ c ؆. where c Ј is deﬁned by the intercept of the failure envelope at zero suction stress. Net normal stress in this regard is an independent stress state variable and suction stress is a material variable. For example. (6.knovel. leading to a series of parallel lines with different values of suction stress. The parallel nature of these two failure lines and the simple relationship between the maximum suction stress and capillary cohesion c ؆ make the graphical representation instructive for shear strength interpretation.19.

or mathematically. matric suction cannot be strictly considered a material variable independent stress state variable. As an analog to the soil-water characteristic curve. graphically.com . the nonlinear nature of the friction angle with respect to matric suction ␾b makes it practically difﬁcult to construct a comprehensive failure surface either experimentally.19 on shear stress–net normal stress plane.e.5 UNIFIED REPRESENTATION OF FAILURE ENVELOPE 255 τf = τf 0 + χ(u a –u w)tan φЈ Shear Stress. Even though it may be accomplished. it is inconsistent to deﬁne matric suction as an independent state variable. 6. capillary cohesion may be considered as a strength characteristic curve for unsaturated soil.knovel.. it is clear that not all matric suction contributes directly to stress acting on the soil skeleton. which is likely near saturation at this point. Capillary cohesion is the contribution of the maximum suction stress to the apparent cohesion. remains at some value of suction less than the air-entry pressure). Third.1. Matric suction is by nature a variable controlled by state variables such as temperature and water content. which are likely to be nearly dry at this level of suction. Second. the effective stress parameter and matric suction). In this regard. Rather. σn – ua Figure 6. or overburden pressure. but may be contributed in its entirety to effective stress in clay. as was formally introduced and derived from a micromechanical framework in Sections 4. matric suction represents the energy level or potential of the soil pore water. Suction Stress [ χf (ua – uw )f ] Tensile Strength (cЈ/tan φЈ) Net Normal Stress. matric suction is used as a governing state variable and is dependent on water content or the degree of saturation as cast in the soilwater characteristic curve. For instance. in the framework established thus far for unsaturated ﬂuid ﬂow.e. such surfaces are very dif- Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. There are several advantages to introducing the concept of suction stress over independently considering the variables that deﬁne it (i. First.5 and 5. τ φЈ Co py rig hte dM ate ria l Capillary Cohesion (c Љ = χ(ua–uw)tan φЈ) φЈ τf 0 = cЈ + (σn – u a)tan φЈ Cohesion (cЈ) Max.6. suction stress originates from the combined effects of negative pore water pressure and surface tension. 400 kPa of suction may contribute a negligible amount of effective stress to relatively coarse sands. From a thermodynamic viewpoint. Unless the soil remains a two-phase saturated system (i.20 Projection of failure shown in Fig..

cЈ.knovel. nor ␾b for describing the state of stress or shear strength. by remaining within the classical M-C framework. A key question following the uniﬁed representation of the M-C criterion for unsaturated soil becomes how to determine the magnitude of capillary cohesion from the results of a given shear strength test. suction stress is a force that pulls particles together. Fourth. net normal stress. (6. cohesion. The shear strength of soil under unsaturated soil conditions may. Uncertainties and ambiguities in the theoretical formulation and experimental determination of ␹ and ␾b are avoided. Capillary cohesion can be expressed in a form suitable for the direct shear test from the M-C criterion in terms of Bishop’s effective stress [eq.256 SHEAR STRENGTH Co py rig hte dM ate ria l 6. And ﬁnally. modiﬁcations to the existing limit analyses that form the basis for most geotechnical design and analysis are minimized. This notion will be demonstrated throughout Chapter 7 in the context of active and passive earth pressure theory.5. Much like a spring in tension. thus indicating that one can circumvent the necessity to deﬁne matric suction or ␹.5 and 5. Similarly. Consideration of suction stress or capillary cohesion as a function of water content and deﬁning it as a stress or strength characteristic curve echoes the conceptualization of the soil-water characteristic curve. (␴ Ϫ ua)f . nor ␹. Second. suction stress is fundamentally a stress that physically exists between soil particles. ␶f .2 Determining the Magnitude of Capillary Cohesion ﬁcult to incorporate into analyses as has been readily done for the classical linear M-C failure criterion.36) Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.19) as c ؆(S) ϭ c ؆(␪) ϭ ␹ƒ(ua Ϫ uw)ƒ tan ␾Ј ϭ (␴1 Ϫ ua)ƒ Ϫ (␴3 Ϫ ua)ƒ tan2 (␲ /4 ϩ ␾Ј /2) Ϫ 2c Ј tan (␲ /4 ϩ ␾Ј /2) 2 tan (␲ /4 ϩ ␾Ј /2) (6. (6. be analyzed entirely within the classical framework of saturated soil mechanics. the capillary cohesion function under principal stresses at failure in a triaxial test can be developed from eq.com . the suction stress representation requires neither matric suction. The magnitude of suction stress contributes directly to effective stress with no reservation. the suction stress concept preserves the simplicity and linearity of the classical M-C criterion. as demonstrated quantitatively in Sections 4. ␾Ј. First.1. as illustrated in the following.17)]: c ؆(S) ϭ c ؆(␪) ϭ ␹ƒ(ua Ϫ uw)ƒ tan ␾Ј ϭ ␶ƒ Ϫ c Ј Ϫ (␴ Ϫ ua)ƒ tan ␾Ј (6. and friction angle. Three additional points speak to the practical advantages of adopting suction stress or capillary cohesion as material variables.35) Note that c؆ is deﬁned directly in terms of the shear stress measured at failure. The following demonstrates these procedures for direct shear and triaxial testing techniques.

5.5 UNIFIED REPRESENTATION OF FAILURE ENVELOPE 257 Co py rig hte dM ate ria l Example Problem 6. and c 3 cohesions due to the corresponding suction stresses at different water contents. φЈ c3 Љ c2 Љ c1 Љ cЈ Test A (saturated) θA = θs Test B θB < θA Test C θC < θB Test D θD < θC Net Normal Stress. which were conducted at different values of net normal stress and under saturated conditions. Consider Fig. the dependency of the capillary cohesion function on water content can be determined. c Ј. constructed by drawing lines parallel to the saturated failure envelope and through the states of stress at failure for each test. c ؆. c ؆ ؆ are the capillary 2 . Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. Plot the M-C failure envelopes for each test. The shear strength under the saturated condition is ␶ƒ0. 6. as illustrated in Fig.com . may be interpreted to determine friction angle and cohesion. Using the shear stress at failure from test 2 Shear Stress. 6.22. the failure states of stress and M-C failure envelopes for tests at various water contents are also a series of parallel lines.5 Results from a series of direct shear tests for a clayey soil are shown in Table 6. If a series of direct shear tests is conducted for specimens prepared at different water contents.21 Uniﬁed representation of Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion for unsaturated soil specimens under direct shear tests.6. Figure 6. Solution Tests 1 and 2. They are ␾ Ј ϭ 40Њ and c Ј ϭ 40 kPa.knovel.35) and (6.36) can both be used as the theoretical basis for designing and interpreting unsaturated shear strength tests and quantifying the associated shear strength parameters ␹ ƒ.21. The intercepts c1 ؆. τ τf = τf 0 + c 3 Љ τf = τf 0 + c 2 Љ τf = τf 0 + c 1 Љ τf 0 = cЈ+ (σn – ua ) tan φЈ Equations (6.23a illustrates a series of parallel failure envelopes corresponding to the subsequent tests conducted at different degrees of saturation. and ␾Ј. The failure envelope under saturated conditions (tests 1 and 2) is used as a benchmark for calculating capillary cohesion at the other degrees of saturation. σ n – ua Figure 6. Calculate and plot capillary cohesion c ؆ as a function of the degree of saturation. If triaxial tests are used to determine shear strength parameters.

23b and tabulated in the last column of Table 6. the capillary cohesion characteristic curve may be applied to predict shear strength phenomena.35 0.000 ␴ Ϫ ua ␶ S (kPa) 120 300 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 (kPa) 141 292 160 300 400 460 500 590 530 525 ␹ c؆ (kPa) 0 0 19 159 259 319 359 449 389 384 1.000 15.000 50.98 0.086 0.049 0. Much like the soil-water characteristic curve and hydraulic conductivity function may be applied to predict ﬂow phenomena in unsaturated soil. the capillary cohesion for each condition can be calculated by eq.000 2. It can be seen that the capillary cohesion of this soil appears to reach a peak value of 449 kPa at a degree of saturation of 0. as the benchmark.031 0.38. TABLE 6.0 0.23b is a characteristic curve for the soil.920 0.258 Shear Stress.5 Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ua Ϫ uw (kPa) 0 0 25 500 1.0 1.22 Uniﬁed representation of Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion for unsaturated soil specimens under triaxial tests. 6.000 1.380 0.71 0. The capillary cohesion function c؆(S) obtained in this manner is plotted in Fig.knovel.000 0.64 0. The curve shown in Fig.com . (6.009 Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.000 11.190 0.000 5.38 0. 6.78 0.2 1. or can be obtained graphically from the interception of the failure envelopes with the shear stress axis and the known value of c Ј.5. σn – ua Figure 6. τ SHEAR STRENGTH Љ τ f = τ f 0 + c3 Љ τ f = τ f 0 + c2 τ f = τ f 0 + c1 Љ τ f 0 = cЈ + (σn – ua) tan φ Ј Co py rig hte dM ate ria l φЈ Test D c3 Љ Test C θD < θC c2 Љ Test B θC < θB c1 Љ cЈ Test A (saturated) θB < θA θA = θs Net Normal Stress.309 0.5 Direct Shear Testing Results for Example Problem 6.35).45 0.

may be interpreted to show that the internal friction angle ␾Ј is equal to 37Њ. Calculate and plot capillary cohesion as a function of matric suction. respectively. The effective stress parameter ␹ and capillary cohesion c ؆ may be calculated using eq.5: (a) uniﬁed Mohr-Coulomb failure envelopes for each test and (b) capillary cohesion as function of degree of saturation.6. the capillary cohesion for test 8 conducted at matric suction equal to 800 kPa is 35 kPa. as shown in the last two columns of Table 6. 4. Capillary cohesion for each test may be evaluated from the intercept of the failure envelopes with the shear stress axis.23 Analysis of direct shear testing data for Example Problem 6. 6.36). (6. Capillary cohesion Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. the cohesion intercept c Ј may be assumed to be equal to zero.6.com . Mohr circles and the M-C failure envelopes for tests 1. For example.6 The results from a series of triaxial tests conducted on a sand are reported in the ﬁrst four columns of Table 6. Example Problem 6. Solution Because the specimen is sand. which was conducted under saturated conditions.24a. τ (kPa) 500 7 6 5 400 300 4 2 200 φЈ = 40° 3 Test 1 100 Benchmark Envelope Under Saturated Conditions 200 300 400 c Ј = 40 kPa 0 0 100 500 600 700 Net Normal Stress. and 8 are plotted in Fig.6. the results of test 1.5 UNIFIED REPRESENTATION OF FAILURE ENVELOPE 259 700 Co py rig hte dM ate ria l 600 8 10 9 Shear Stress. σn – ua (kPa) (a) Figure 6.knovel. Accordingly.

0 Figure 6.080 0.111 0.8 1.4 0.092 0.6 Triaxial Testing Results for Example Problem 6. S (b) 0.0 0.058 Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.2 0. c´´ (kPa) 300 200 100 0 0.6 Degree of Saturation.533 0.000 0.23 (Continued ). TABLE 6.com .150 0.260 SHEAR STRENGTH 500 400 Co py rig hte dM ate ria l Capillary Cohesion.833 0.6 Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 u a Ϫ uw (kPa) 0 20 50 200 300 400 500 800 ␴1 Ϫ ua ␴3 Ϫ ua (kPa) 200 250 280 290 300 310 320 340 (kPa) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 ␹ c؆ (kPa) 0 13 20 23 25 28 30 35 1.knovel.

Rather.’’ but indeed has a profound effect on macroscopic physical behavior such as volume change or shearing resistance. Calculate the friction angle and cohesion intercept from tests 1 and 2 conducted under saturated conditions. suction stress inevitably becomes a material variable. Co py rig hte dM ate ria l Solution The friction angle and cohesion intercept may be determined from the results of tests 1 and 2 conducted under saturated conditions using eq. (1978) is to advocate net normal stress and matric suction as independent and nonmaterial Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. material variables that describe the relative amounts of each phase are necessary. water content. where ua Ϫ uw ϭ 0 and c Ј 1 ϭ c Ј.com .6. Graphically determine the capillary cohesion for each suction level. (6. This is no longer the case in unsaturated soil.knovel. Example Problem 6. capillary cohesion. Suction stress depends on the degree of saturation.3 Concluding Remarks The physical meaning of Bishop’s effective stress for application to unsaturated soil appears to be consistent with Terzaghi’s original deﬁnition of effective stress in saturated soil. and apparent cohesion as functions of matric suction. Mohr circles for each test and failure envelopes for the tests conducted at the same suction values are shown in Fig.8 kPa.5 UNIFIED REPRESENTATION OF FAILURE ENVELOPE 261 for the entire testing series is depicted as a function of matric suction in Fig. Calculate the effective stress parameter. 12).25b. In a multiphase system such as unsaturated soil. 6.7 Triaxial test results for a silty soil are shown in the ﬁrst four columns of Table 6. They are ␾ Ј ϭ 33Њ and c Ј ϭ 20. The capillary cohesion c ؆ function and apparent cohesion c ؆ ϩ c Ј function are shown in Fig. 6. or whatever other quantity is identiﬁed as most suitable for deﬁning the unsaturated nature of soil.10). Effective stress for saturated soil does not need to involve material variables because the neutral stress that Terzaghi suggests must be subtracted from the total stress to deﬁne effective stress is an isotropic stress equal to the pore water pressure. state variables are those that are required to completely describe a system for the phenomenon at hand. the so-called neutral stress is no longer ‘‘neutral.24b. matric suction. Thus. one approach proposed by Fredlund et al.7. Plot Mohr circles for tests 1 through 6 and construct the failure envelopes for the test pairs conducted at the same suction.25a. The characteristic stress identiﬁed here as suction stress ␹(ua Ϫ uw) directly represents the stress between unsaturated soil particles.5. which states the following: [effective stress] ‘‘represents that part of the total stress which produces measurable effects such as compaction or an increase of the shearing resistance’’ (Terzaghi. Nevertheless. and as summarized in Chapter 1. According to Fung (1965). p. 1943. 6. 6. Deﬁning material variables as part of stress state variables is by no means a violation of classical continuum mechanics.

σn – ua (kPa) (a) 50 40 Capillary Cohesion.com . c´´ (kPa) 30 20 10 0 1 10 100 1000 Matric Suction.400 Co py rig hte dM ate ria l 200 Shear Stress.6: (a) uniﬁed Mohr-Coulomb failure envelopes for each test and (b) capillary cohesion as function of matric suction.24 Analysis of triaxial testing data for Example Problem 6. 262 Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. u a – uw (kPa) (b) Figure 6. τ (kPa) 300 φЈ = 37° Benchmark Envelope Under Saturated Conditions 100 Test 8 ua – uw = 800 kPa Test 8 c Љ = 35 kPa Test 1 ua – uw = 0 Test 4 ua – uw = 200 kPa 0 cЈ = 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Net Normal Stress.knovel.

66 165. but rather.338 0.8 65. this requires the introduction of new material variables (e.17) and (6. shear strength is described using a modiﬁed M-C criterion.19) illustrate theoretically that the uncertainty in determining ␹ from laboratory experiments on specimens taken to failure is due to the fact that matric suction appears in the denominator of the equations from which it is calculated.70 108.7 Triaxial Testing Results and Calculations for Example Problem 6.86 144. This uncertainty is particularly pronounced when matric suction is either very high (practically important in expansive soil) or very low (practically important in sandy soil). the necessity to calculate ␹.71 165.26 65.e. ␾ b. ␬) as functions of matric suction.82 Co py rig hte dM ate ria l dependent stress state variables. To capture shear strength behavior over a realistically wide range. This quantity..81 119.149 .149 0. approaches employing ␾b and ␹ encounter uncertainties and difﬁculties because the material parameters required for their formulation (i.57 87.37 108.342 0. Equations (6.4. the product of the two. The parameter of most relevance to physical behavior and of most practical signiﬁcance is neither matric suction nor the effective stress parameter. Capillary cohesion. As illustrated in Section 6. The material variable ␾ b was considered earlier as a constant but later expanded to reﬂect its nonlinear nature with respect to matric suction. ␾ b or ␹) are highly dependent on matric suction or water content.46 44.02 cЈ ϩ c؆ (kPa) 20.191 0. Thus. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.. or ␬ can be avoided.90 88. which represents the mobilization of suction stress in terms of shearing resistance.6.com 1.343 0.03 98.3.8 20. can be used as a material variable to reconcile the two competing theories for the strength of unsaturated soil. The material variable ␬ is empirical and does not possess direct physical meaning. both the ␾ b and ␬ approaches can be reconciled with Bishop’s effective stress approach.83 119. or degree of saturation.00 0.91 145. ␾ b. which was established within a micromechanical framework by considering equilibrium between idealized particles in Chapters 4 and 5.000 1.g.01 99. water content.00 44.000 0. directly contributes to shearing resistance and can be directly quantiﬁed from laboratory shear strength tests. Consequently.7 Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (ua Ϫ uw)ƒ (kPa) 0 0 200 200 400 400 800 800 1500 1500 (␴3 Ϫ ua)ƒ (kPa) 23 64 50 100 50 100 50 100 50 100 (␴1 Ϫ ua)ƒ (kPa) 153 289 410 580 570 740 611 780 780 950 ␹ c؆ (kPa) 0.190 0.5 UNIFIED REPRESENTATION OF FAILURE ENVELOPE 263 TABLE 6.339 0. the quantity identiﬁed and deﬁned as suction stress.knovel. However.

c´ + c´´ 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Matric Suction. c´´ Apparent Cohesion. τ (kPa) 600 Co py rig hte dM ate ria l 400 ua – uw = 400 kPa ua – uw = 200 kPa ua – uw = 0 kPa φЈ = 33° 200 6 4 cЈ = 20. u a – u w (kPa) ( b) Figure 6.8 kPa Test 1 200 2 3 5 0 0 400 600 800 1000 Net Normal Stress.7: (a) uniﬁed Mohr-Coulomb failure envelopes for tests 1 through 6 and (b) capillary cohesion and apparent cohesion as functions of matric suction. σn – ua (kPa) (a) 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Capillary or Apparent Cohesion (kPa) Capillary Cohesion.25 Analysis of triaxial testing data for Example Problem 6.com . 264 Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.800 Shear Stress.

0 0. Assume that the cohesion c Ј is zero and determine the internal friction angle ␾Ј. and ␹ can be related mathematically under the framework of Terzaghi’s effective stress and the M-C failure criterion. the effective stress parameter as a function of saturation and matric suction. A series of direct shear tests was conducted to determine the unsaturated shear strength properties of a glacial till.2 0.33 59.91 110.15 0. which state.knovel. Under the same external loading condition. Results are shown in Table 6. and suction stress.5 50.31 21.PROBLEMS 265 PROBLEMS Co py rig hte dM ate ria l 6. effective stress parameter function.4. TABLE 6. ␹ versus ua Ϫ uw.72 74. Determine the internal friction angle ␾Ј and cohesion c Ј at saturation. c ؆ versus ua Ϫ uw.9.11 100.24 6. the effective stress parameter. Plot matric suction.8. the effective stress parameter. which one do you think will be more representative to describe the strength of unsaturated soil? S (kPa) (kPa) 1.0 1. and suction stress as functions of the degree of saturation.36 85. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. saturated or unsaturated. Plot the effective stress parameter and capillary cohesion functions. 6.3 Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ua Ϫ uw (kPa) 0 0 50 100 150 250 350 500 1000 ␴ Ϫ ua ␶ 6.6 0.1 50 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 33.4 0. has a higher strength? What are the possible state variables that control changes in soil strength? Among the controlling variables matric suction.8 Direct Shear Testing Results for Problem 6.66 40. and capillary cohesion function.3.com . ␬.2. and the suction stress characteristic curve. A series of saturated and unsaturated triaxial tests were conducted on a sand-clay mixture.12 0.1. ␹(ua Ϫ uw) versus S. Results are shown in Table 6. Show that the material variables ␾ b.9 0.

com . 6.9 Triaxial Testing Results for Problem 6.4 Test 1 2 3 4 (ua Ϫ uw)f (kPa) 0 200 400 850 (␴1 Ϫ ua)f (kPa) 486 600 950 1300 (␴3 Ϫ ua)f (kPa) 150 120 200 260 Co py rig hte dM ate ria l 6. show mathematically that the relationship between suction stress and capillary cohesion can be established. The friction angle and cohesion intercept were determined by tests conducted under saturated conditions as ␾Ј ϭ 25Њ and c Ј ϭ 20.knovel.8 kPa.266 SHEAR STRENGTH TABLE 6. and apparent cohesion as functions of matric suction.20.10 Triaxial Testing Results for Problem 6. Calculate the effective stress parameter. 6.6 Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 (ua Ϫ uw)f (kPa) 200 200 400 400 1500 1500 (␴3 Ϫ ua)f (kPa) 200 400 200 400 200 400 (␴1 Ϫ ua)f (kPa) 850 1350 1050 1560 1380 1900 Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www. Graphically determine capillary cohesion for each suction level. TABLE 6.5. Triaxial test results for a silty soil are shown Table 6.6. Plot Mohr circles for tests 1 through 6 and construct failure envelopes for the test pairs conducted at the same suction. capillary cohesion. Using Fig.10.